I wish I was more involved with V-sets 2 and 4. In my opinion that's where many of the problems lie. I only play-tested certain figures in those sets, and I was as surprised as most people when it was released to see certain stat sets. But that's just my opinion. Others point elsewhere to what they think are problems. Regardless, that's not what this thread is about.

[/quote]Again, problems to you. Not everyone sees the pieces as "problems" the way you do. The pieces you dislike are part of a form of strategy that doesn't appeal to you. It doesn't make them "problems."

Ummm, isn't this what Tim just said? Why are you telling him that's his opinion when he just stated that.

_________________"But one thing I have learned in this process is that flavor can't override the good of the game."-urbanshmi2-

If you hate luck-based pieces so much justified in creating rage threads and you were actually involved in playtesting or design suggestions, then where were you when those pieces were designed?

So to act like the luck-based options we created are "fanboy garbage" is just nonsense. There has been a desire for a long time for a Jedi that was feared.

A Jedi that was feared? In the Republic faction? A faction that was already T-1. And then you say the meta didn't shift the way you predicted.

Then you ask where Tim was when these pieces were created. Why ask when it didn't matter. Trevor was against flurry on Mace, and I heard others against triple greater mobile. It obviously didn't matter where Tim or anyone was for that matter because you were going to put all the stats on him.

That is FanBoy if I've ever heard it. (you specifically said Mace was your creation).

And also for the record, an occasional grenades save is not the kind of luck that the people of this thread are complaining about. I'll make the occasional grenades save against you and I'll also make a 50/50 save against every attack from everyone of your pieces and if you ever kill my guy because of it then I'll just make a couple of avoid defeat saves and make you go through all of that again and again.

When we talk about luck taking over the game, it's not the occasional grenades save. It's the avoidance of all damage from all attacks and granting Avoid defeat to all my figs (new Mara) [with free rerolls]. And other abilities that are going to make the game go on and on and on and never end. Hence when Tim said let's get a bag of quarters and see who flips more heads cause it will be faster and more enjoyable (to some)

_________________"But one thing I have learned in this process is that flavor can't override the good of the game."-urbanshmi2-

The thing that keeps being missed here is this: NPE does not necessarily mean top tier.

I get that. The problem is that people are jumping from stating their NPE to suggesting/demanding changes in the rules to eliminate the NPE. If it isn't top tier then it doesn't need a national solution. If it is so rampant in the local meta and is driving people from the table, by all means house rule it.

I'm all for everyone in a group enjoying the game. In my group, we have maybe 4 of us out of 13-15 who could seriously compete for a regional win. That means if we want to grow our game locally we can't have too many NPEs. We run alternate formats and mass battles, mixing in competitive play on occasion.

I'm also for meta issues to be addressed in subsequent sets by designers... something I believe they've done with success. I just think right now, although I agree that playing against SSM and Mace are my most irritating NPEs, that hamstringing them...or mice...is not necessary right now.

_________________Cancer is not the boss of me.

Being organized is for people who are too lazy to look for their stuff.

Jason - you'll get this - It's kinda like Jedi Reflexes. All things considered, it SHOULD have been what Force-attuned reflexes is now all along, because it hurts so many other things unintentionally.

No, it doesn't. The fallacy in this statement is the presumption of intent. The statement presumes that Jedi Reflexes was meant for a specific purpose and that there were unintended side effects. Actually, it does exactly what it was meant to.

You mean presumption of intent like this?

Grand Moff Boris wrote:

urbanjedi wrote:

I have seen lots of Jedi reflexes planned for V-set 3 and 4. Is there plans for a way to get around it. If you penalize people for getting adjacent, it will just start to swing the game back toward shooters again.

No such plans at this time. Jedi Reflexes is one of the best ways to deal with the Lancer. Come up with a better way to deal with the Lancer so it doesn't continue to derail the spirit of the game (meaning both players participating in active combat). When you do, we can talk about Jedi Reflexes.

I've held off on commenting on this thread, because I feel like I said what I needed to say re: GOWK/Windu in the previous thread, and it seemed like it was getting more and more argumentative, when I think it was meant to just be a list of things people find unpleasant to play against.

For my personal NPEs, activation control and death shots. The reasons have been covered fully already (in essence, both squad types seek to limit engagement, either by out-waiting the opponent or outright punishing them for doing what they're supposed to do). Those are my personal issues, but I understand that plenty of other people like to play these types of squads, so I deal with it and just hope I don't face them too much

Now from my perspective, where this thread started to go off the rails was when it moved from a discussion of things we don't like to a discussion of how these things should be "fixed." To say that a specific ability or interaction needs to be changed implies, as others have observed, that it is a significant problem in the national competitive game. Very few, if any, of the things mentioned in this thread fall into that category. Annoying, yes. But a serious problem, to the point that it's actually preventing a substantial number of people from enjoying the game at all, and/or dominating the meta to the point that you must play X or counter-X to compete? I just don't see it. That doesn't mean that it's not fun to discuss the potential obliteration of mouse droid walls, but it does mean that you shouldn't expect things to change on that front just because you don't like them.

I think the V-set designers have actually done a fantastic job at finding the things in the meta that threaten to overpower the pure enjoyment of the game and making ways around them. Have there been some missteps? Of course, and most of the designers will own up to those. But I think it's unfair to chalk those issues up to carelessness or "unintended consequences." The design teams are human, and they are doing the best they can to make the game better. There will always be situations and combinations that come up that nobody really anticipated, despite the dozen or so people directly or indirectly involved in creating every piece. That's the genius of our game and our community. It's a GOOD thing.

A Jedi that was feared? In the Republic faction? A faction that was already T-1. And then you say the meta didn't shift the way you predicted.

I respectfully disagree with the statement that the Republic was already tier-1. In the hands of great players it did well, but I can't recall the last time a Republic squad won at GenCon. (Last year was the closest it ever came, and it fell to an OR squad - but I believe getting to the final table had more to do with the player's skill at running the Yobuck-based squad than the squad itself.)

Quote:

Then you ask where Tim was when these pieces were created. Why ask when it didn't matter. Trevor was against flurry on Mace, and I heard others against triple greater mobile. It obviously didn't matter where Tim or anyone was for that matter because you were going to put all the stats on him.

That is FanBoy if I've ever heard it. (you specifically said Mace was your creation).

Not sure where you got your information but that is also not true. What I said was that I proposed the original template for Mace. No less than 5 people decided what the final template would be. Those included Bill (who worked on the design team with me), Daniel and several other Atlanta area players (who playtested), and others on the playtest team (we don't always know who all playtests each card). As I said before, playtesters actually called for making the piece stronger with shooter defense abilities, which is how he ultimately got Reflect.

Asking where Tim was when it was created if he hated it so much is a fair question if he is going to claim he's been involved with every set.

The problem is it is too heavy of an investment (over 10% of your squad) just on the off chance you see a melee heavy squad. If you are against any type of shooter squad he is a waste of 22 pts. Because if I am shooting you either (A) I can easily kill that guy from a distance or (B) if he isn't up there then its like your are playing with a 178 pt squad. I like those odds.

Thanks for breaking this down Jason.

I wrote over on bloomilk that I thought covert ops was bad for the game but after reading this is realize its just simply a NPE. I still don't get the rationale for making it. It seems like it is aimed at Mace, Yobuck and the Lancer but leaves a ton of collateral damage to lesser melee characters in the process. I guess that's what irritates me the most.

Now from my perspective, where this thread started to go off the rails was when it moved from a discussion of things we don't like to a discussion of how these things should be "fixed." To say that a specific ability or interaction needs to be changed implies, as others have observed, that it is a significant problem in the national competitive game. Very few, if any, of the things mentioned in this thread fall into that category. Annoying, yes. But a serious problem, to the point that it's actually preventing a substantial number of people from enjoying the game at all, and/or dominating the meta to the point that you must play X or counter-X to compete? I just don't see it. That doesn't mean that it's not fun to discuss the potential obliteration of mouse droid walls, but it does mean that you shouldn't expect things to change on that front just because you don't like them.

I see where your coming from and was a bit hesitant to respond to this part but thinking about it let me go ahead and do so. I don't think the MD wall is just a "I dont like it" thing. Sure it wasn't at GenCon but it sure showed up at regionals a good bit. It also certainly counted as a you must play counter-X but the problem was without packing Lobot main and stareing at what your opponent grabs odds are you were not going to bring in Momaw because well this strategy was supposed to be dead.

The game is now in the hands of the players, or so we have been told. Now if this is to mean certain players lets be really clear about that so that we all understand that discussing the obliteration of the Mouse wall strategy doesn't get people's hopes up. I didn't realize until this time yesterday that what was being discussed here was basically for naught. As a player in a "Player Controlled game" I thought and I don't think that I was alone that this was a chance to discuss the issue with the "Powers that be" to make a change on a NPE that plagued me all throughout the regional season and even once in the JC.

See the thing with the Mouse wall is how in many of the rather popular squads of today it isnt worth the trouble. Yobuck is just going to kill them, Mace is going to fly over them with Artoo. Many of the Storm Commado squads carried Veers to gain Accurate shot to shoot over them. So from those squads this is not a problem.

The problem becomes really apparent when you go away from the top squads. For example you can wreck havoc with Mando deathshots since without a really expensive Boba they will always have to follow targeting rules. Also in most versions your shooting at a +12 against activated characters and needing a 12 to hit a MD. In Vong with it all being rather fragile Melee characters like JH one turn of having to attack a droid without all your human hating bonus can get your figure killed before it attacks a legititmate target. Those are just two examples off the top of my head.

It isnt that the MDs are un-beatable but they really hamper what you can play in the meta. In my paticular Mando DS squad I could possibly fit Lobot in the spot of my +4 Commander. Ok lets do that, then tank match-ups get much harder with shooting at a +12 instead of a 16. Having played the squad a ton I can tell you that is nearly a death sentence when big ole Windu shows up with a base 26 defense because of GOWK or some of the crazy defense droids can get with HK. So because this situation exist I have to choose to set up to kill 0 pt gaining figs that will cause me a slow death or use those pts to be able to handle pieces that give me pts... Both will cause a loss if not prepped for. So with all things considered why would I play Mandos??? Not a good question to have to ask in game where the design team is out to make every faction playable.

_________________

Winning a tournament always allows doing whatever is within the rules to win. - Billiv15

The problem is it is too heavy of an investment (over 10% of your squad) just on the off chance you see a melee heavy squad. If you are against any type of shooter squad he is a waste of 22 pts. Because if I am shooting you either (A) I can easily kill that guy from a distance or (B) if he isn't up there then its like your are playing with a 178 pt squad. I like those odds.

Thanks for breaking this down Jason.

I wrote over on bloomilk that I thought covert ops was bad for the game but after reading this is realize its just simply a NPE. I still don't get the rationale for making it. It seems like it is aimed at Mace, Yobuck and the Lancer but leaves a ton of collateral damage to lesser melee characters in the process. I guess that's what irritates me the most.

There have been a lot - A LOT - of complaints the last couple of years about overpowering damage output, and Covert Ops was seen as a way of reining that in slightly. Much like when WotC made stuff, people (me included) lamented about what it might do to the game, but after playing it it turned out to be okay. And if it gives people who are frustrated with higher damage output some relief, then it did what it was intended. One person's NPE is another person's PPE (positive play experience), and I think that is important that everyone has something they like in this game. It's when EVERYTHING is an NPE that we start to have a problem. We're nowhere near that, and with the people we have involved in designing, should never be.

FWIW, I never actually expected that any of these anti-mouse-wall ideas would actually be used. It's a discussion thread, not a decision-making thread. So when I tossed up an idea about George Lucas it was half-serious and half-humorous (as should be obvious from the name I gave it). My purpose in commenting on other ideas was to reinforce what I thought would be essential aspects of the design IF (and that's a big if) such a piece were ever made. We've seen a number of "counters" which don't quite serve their purpose, and which are therefore disappointments.

Likewise, when I suggested that we might consider errata to change this game design error, I wasn't expecting a binding vote on it after a few pages of consideration; instead, I was just tossing the idea out there to see what the response would be. Personally, I'd like it very much if we had a simple errata for Mice, because I do think the mouse-wall problem would be better handled with a simple errata than it would with V-Set work-arounds...but it's clear that I'm in the minority there. That's fine, because it was just an idea for discussion.

What is becoming clear to me through this discussion is that the best solution to an NPE is the Houserule. I think the place where we can really see the changes we want to see is on our local scene. My friends and I (before I moved to the USA) agreed to not use Bastilla, and/or that, if we did use her, then ABM would only give the damage boost and not nerf CEs. If you don't like Flurry on Mace, or SSM working as written, or whatever, then houserule it. I've been happy to play this way on Vassal too, as long as I wasn't practicing for Regionals/Gencon.

When it comes to NPEs, I think that groups need to do a lot more houseruling. If people are leaving the game because of certain NPEs, then deal with it on a local level so that the game will still be fun for those players. Of course, if they want to compete on an "official" or national level then they'll need to adapt to the "official" rules. But then, if they're going to be actually competing on that level, then they'll also be using squads and tactics that can handle the gameplay at that level. Just because something is an NPE for me, that does not mean I don't know how to handle it...I'd just prefer not to have to.

_________________"Don't give the tool more credit than the master." --Weeks

The game is now in the hands of the players, or so we have been told. Now if this is to mean certain players lets be really clear about that so that we all understand that discussing the obliteration of the Mouse wall strategy doesn't get people's hopes up. I didn't realize until this time yesterday that what was being discussed here was basically for naught. As a player in a "Player Controlled game" I thought and I don't think that I was alone that this was a chance to discuss the issue with the "Powers that be" to make a change on a NPE that plagued me all throughout the regional season and even once in the JC.

It's funny to me that you take this attitude, because it's not really true. Yeah, the game is run by a Player's Committee, and if you aren't a part of that Committee your voice might not be as loud, but it is heard. Also keep in mind that if I say that I disagree, I'm just one designer; others might agree with you. My word isn't the end by any stretch, and I don't claim to or expect to speak for the entire design team on this issue. I only speak for myself.

That's the main advantage to the game being controlled by players compared to when it was controlled by WotC. I disagree with your estimate of how much of a problem Mouse Droids are, and I disagree with many of the proposed "solutions" in this thread (mostly any kind of errata or silver bullet), but as a designer I'm willing and able to give you a softer solution. In fact, this morning I've been churning out some ideas for a future set, and I'm working out a cheap in-faction counter to Mouse Droid walls for Mandos. Yeah, it might be a "fix" that isn't seen for a while, but as a designer I have to think long-term, because we work in the long term.

What would you name an ability that gives an attack bonus when attacking non-uniques? Basically Bounty Hunter, but the inverse. I can't think of a good name.

_________________"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

FWIW, I never actually expected that any of these anti-mouse-wall ideas would actually be used. It's a discussion thread, not a decision-making thread. So when I tossed up an idea about George Lucas it was half-serious and half-humorous (as should be obvious from the name I gave it). My purpose in commenting on other ideas was to reinforce what I thought would be essential aspects of the design IF (and that's a big if) such a piece were ever made. We've seen a number of "counters" which don't quite serve their purpose, and which are therefore disappointments.

Interestingly, Trevor you are in a unique position.

As the winner of 2012 GenCon World Championship, you get to make your own figure in V-Set 6. You COULD make this 2pt fringe unique if you wanted.

Let's talk about the Mouse Droid wall for a minute. Let's say that we make some mouse droid nerf specifically for the mouse droid that is cheap. Now everyone plays it in their squad and now your mando squad which depends on mouse droids to spread the CEs (their intended purpose) is hampered as much or more as now your opp can much more easily take out your mice. He can shoot over them to hit you, etc. Now we have to make some new "mando" (or pick your faction) mouse droid or give them booming voice or whatever to fix that problem.

Looking at the regional results 4 squads that made a T4 had lobot and Gha. 3 were droid squads so Gha fits the theme. 1 the preferred reinforcements for one is an MTB and 6 mice (single lancer poggle bombs), 2 of them from the look of the squad the preferred reinforcements are an iggy and 2 mice (HK 47 squad and Mel's double lancer in CA). The last was my own smug commando squad that won chicago. I don't think I even brought 10 mice, but my normal reinforcements ended up being an mtb and 6 mice. I did use greedo once and Momaw once but I think all the other games were an MTB and mice. The game was hugely more fun (for me) with the sped up version. I would probably build it slightly differently knowing that but hey.

I would say that looking at the regional results (and results of other large tournies) that the designers have done a great job bringing all the factions up to speed. Are some of them still behind? Sure the mandos and vong still probably aren't quite there, but there was a mando squad in contention for T8 until last round if I am not mistaken and I think only 1 player played vong but he left early (still an outside shot at T8). I mean we could have had a repeat champ if Ian hadn't had to leave after round 5 (3-2) with a good shot of T8. What would we be talking about now if Ian had managed to repeat?

Every NPE we fix can create even more problems. Covert ops is taking some bashing right now because it creates an NPE even though in theory it fixes the NPE of swap in run up to you and smash you without recourse by making you have to roll to see if you can attack.

Every faction has answers to the MD wall (some factions are better than others) but there are tons of NPEs. The designers did their best in DOTF to hamper activation control but it was still very prevelant in the regional season, but almost non-existant in the T8 at Gencon.

And even if a specific mouse droid hate piece was made, people would still play them. We Star Wars miniatures players are a stubborn lot. I almost played double lancer again this year even though there is so much "hate" out there for it now and looking at my matchups, I probably would have done about the same as I did with my Echanis squad (maybe better). Our game has shown historically that people play what they like no matter how many bad matchups they may have.

_________________When I left you I was but the learner . . . now I am the master.

The game is now in the hands of the players, or so we have been told. Now if this is to mean certain players lets be really clear about that so that we all understand that discussing the obliteration of the Mouse wall strategy doesn't get people's hopes up. I didn't realize until this time yesterday that what was being discussed here was basically for naught. As a player in a "Player Controlled game" I thought and I don't think that I was alone that this was a chance to discuss the issue with the "Powers that be" to make a change on a NPE that plagued me all throughout the regional season and even once in the JC.

Discussion is fine. The good designers will keep in mind the various opinions, even if they disagree with them or don't like them. You just have to remember, being heard is not the same as being acted on. I can tell you right now, errata on Mice Droids are not an option. They are a WOTC piece, and I am dead set against changing any WOTC piece or power. There are all things we would like to change about the game. But the more we change to the WOTC stuff, the more we keep returning players away, as the game they remember has become ruled by "houserules". The rules cannot be governed by the larger playerbase, as really there are only a handful of people that I would trust handling them.

As far as the SWM community being player run, it is. That doesn't mean that there aren't checks and balances. And we do listen to all the feedback. Just because 1 person's feedback isn't acted upon doesn't mean it isn't considered.

For instance I personally still think the A-series droid is still overpowered. I argued until I couldn't argue anymore that it needed to be changed, but I think it came out with slightly higher stats than I had playtested. However, in retrospect it seems that I was wrong because no one playing it has done well and if it were truly overpowered it would have taken the world by storm so to speak. And it still pales in comparison to the power of the IG-86 so people still play the old WOTC piece and complain that they don't have any way to get accurate.

_________________When I left you I was but the learner . . . now I am the master.

It was just pointed out to me by a Mando player (which I am not) that Mandos have a cheap piece with Splash (the Mando Crusader). I'd forgotten about him. That seems like a great counter to Mouse Walls. If you play a Mando squad and have real trouble with Mouse Droid Walls, why not play one or two of those? They're just 7 points and also have Crack Shot, which is an absolutely amazing ability. It might be difficult to play him since his stat line is so weak, but that's what you get for 7 points. If he gets Twin then Splash should let him really easily punch holes in Mouse Droid walls.

You mention playing Death Shots, so maybe the problem isn't so much Mouse Walls but Mouse Swarms, where they go and get adjacent to you and then kill your guy, forcing you to kill the Mouse Droid instead of something good. Is that true? If so, I think you'll have a hard time getting traction for a change there, since so many people seem to consider Death Shots to be at least as big or bigger of an NPE than Mouse Droids.

_________________"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

So with all things considered why would I play Mandos??? Not a good question to have to ask in game where the design team is out to make every faction playable.

at the moment you play mando's because you like them, not because they will win you anything. The Vong and Mando's are generally considered the 2 weakest factions at the moment by anyone who is actually looking at the game objectively and has been trying to make T1 squads from each factions regardless of how Eric Larson did with the vong in the champs or whether they won any regionals.

Why is that? Well the honest answer is the designs for them haven't really payed off like we intended. Take a look at Vengeance, try and spot the figures in the mandos that were designed to combat mouse screens. There are at least 2 or 3 that work either by lowering defenses (saboteur) or by causing a clustered 10-60 dmg hit (Fett, who actually won a regional) or by splashing (crusader). Fetts CE at present is too difficult to set up in a faction lacking a form of mid round movement breaking.

The saboteur is actually a low cost effective solution for Mando's when facing high defenses and should almost be a staple for the squads. In the champs i lost to a Mando squad run by Bill Hazel. He used cloaked, HK mouse screens, saboteurs and death shots to basically nerf my accurate shot and out gun my swiss army knife Han/Corran JM NR squad (I incorrectly took a TBSV instead of Mowman as a counter to his 28d cover mice). So its not like either of these factions are that weak, they are just missing a trick or two.

And they both are getting some big tricks in set 4 and 5.

I can sense your frustration in every post Audri and I sympathize but bear in mind that all these NPEs are in the minds of designers when we design and we try and combat them when we can. Designers create tools for players to use in the hope that people find the combinations that allows them to play a particular playstyle and faction with close to equal chances to win.However, the whole game is now a MASSIVE puzzle for anyone to try and figure out. Even those trying to guide this puzzle in the right direction don't have any certainty in the knowledge that what is added is going to result in a positive affect. We attempt to play test this stuff but the amount of hours in testing is paltry to the amount of hours and thought the community puts in once the stats are released and so some designs come out a bit over powered/underpowered as a result.

There are also several designs that probably weren't best thought out. HKs +4 to droid followers is a great example of something that was intended to help certain figures (namely low defense fringe and separatist droids) but inadvertently exacerbated a significant NPE (mice screens). Designs have been and are usually adjusted to what Boris terms "mouse droid syndrome" it appears HK wasn't subjected to that, or perhaps he was and this was one of the intended builds, I'm not sure because i wasn't involved with set 2 (1st child was born around the time of its design).

So whereas I sympathize with your frustration I have to implore you to understand that no-one is constructing the game so that you are forced to play pieces and factions you don't want to play. The intent is to make every faction as powerful as each other so people can play what they want but with so much variety and unforseen synergies its nigh on impossible to get the game to a spot where every faction has the same chance of winning.

I reiterate that this game is a puzzle. If you want to take home a big prize (regional or GC championship) then you have to figure out what floats to the top and put aside what you WANT to play. In a casual setting is where you play for fun and its in that environment you can house rule no mice, or no Gha or come to some understanding of what figs to play.In a tournament you can't have allegiances to factions, you pick what you consider is the best squad, in the best faction, on the best map regardless of whether its the faction you want or not.This year, Trevor figured out the puzzle the best. It will most likely be someone different in future years but NO-ONE is designing this game so that only an elite bunch of players get to reap the benefits of the sets.Once stats get released, everyone is on the same field. Everyone has access to the same stats and abilities should you choose to field them. I'm pretty sure there are squad variations that people haven't played or even thought of because the game is now so vast.

Lastly i want to mention this point because i think its very, very important to understand

audrisampson wrote:

The problem becomes really apparent when you go away from the top squads.

But there are so many abilities and commander effects that are game breaking when you step away from the top squads. The gimmicks such as superstealth, levitate, swap, activation control, tow, mice screens etc create huge problems for squads that are not built to deal with them.

Over 4 years ago i remember noting the huge variation of strength between certain squad builds and others, namely tourney squad v fun squads. Often, i would plop down a theme squad and my opponent would build a t1.5 or 2 squad and just by looking at the two squad i KNEW there was no point playing against it, and this wasn't even two tourney squads, this was just a theme BH squad against a vong SS swarm.But that is just the reality of the game. If i built a squad based around RS to universe pieces and my opponent plays something top including vset pieces there is likely no build that can make this a fair match.If you want to compete you must build ruthlessly, there is no way to design this game where less than optimal builds perform in tournaments because the gap between t1 and t2 squads increases with each set regardless of figure design.

Implementing a sweeping change to try and offset the problems of something annoying like mouse screens will most likely open the door for some other abusive NPE we hadn't even thought about such is the complexity of the game.

Yes, this game can be frustrating but its frustrating because of its huge complexity and the difficulty in the puzzle of balancing it is just as frustrating as trying to build a squad that won't auto lose to some of the behemoth squads that are out there.Why do you think Magic rotates its sets? Its because the puzzle gets to large to design around. Why do you think that CCGs and CMGs have limited shelf lives? One reason is because at some point the game becomes so big that designing effectively is a whole hell of a lot of effort and more effort than profitable companies care to invest. SWM exceeded this size long before V sets which, IMO, was why we ended up with such a restrictive meta for the last 2-3 years before WotC canned it.

_________________

Last edited by fingersandteeth on Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum